Forwarded from perl5-porters.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MakeMaker, XS and C++
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:04:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Salvador "Fandiño" <sfa...@ya...>
To: Michael G Schwern <sc...@po...>
CC: per...@pe..., Nick Ing-Simmons
<nic...@el...>, mak...@pe...
--- Michael G Schwern <sc...@po...> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 07:40:57PM +0000, Salvador Fandiño wrote:
> > A new version of the "C++ support for MakeMaker" patch is ready.
>
> The more I think about this the more nervous I get at putting all
> this new functionality into MakeMaker in a part that's not very
> well understood
> (XS module building) while I'm trying to wind down development.
>
> Sorry to ask this so late in the process, but is there a good
> reason this couldn't be done with Module::Build instead?
> And "because lots of people use MakeMaker" isn't one of them.
well, Module::Build biggest strength is that it´s a pure Perl module
that doesn't depend on an external tool like make but for C/C++
modules you will need a development environment anyway and using make
is not a problem at all.
Actually, most C/C++ developers should feel more comfortable using
and customizing ExtUtils::MakeMaker/make than Module::Build and not
because EU::MM has been there forever and M::B is new but because
they can look at the generated Makefile and understand it. For
example, I have a SWIG based module that builds with EU::MM and that
has a simple make rule to generate the .c file from a .i SWIG file.
Could I have done the same which M::B easily? I doubt it, I would
have to understand M::B internals, for EU::MM I only need to know how
to add a rule to the generated Makefile.
Bye,
- Salva.
|
